BY JENS ULRICH HØGH

On the 26^th of July 2022 The Guardian published a review of a “documentary” called “Lion Spy”. I reacted to the review – which I saw as more of a contribution to a deliberate campaign against hunting than an actual review – by writing The Guardian a letter. It’s been well over a week and I’ve had no reaction from The Guardian. I must confess that I didn’t expect anything but silence yet I hoped for the publishing of my letter in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that it is critical to the journalistic standards of the Guardian that they refer to facts instead of propaganda. Clearly this is not a debate the Guardian wants so I am publishing my letter here.

In Scandinavia (where I live) we expect our news media to be objective and unbiased. If individual journalists let their own opinion shine through, then the editorial staff will reprimand them and apologise to their readers. If an entire newspaper is campaigning (for anything) it will no longer be regarded as trustworthy at all.

Here is my letter:

Dear Editor,

As a hunter, who would probably be branded a “trophy hunter”, as I enjoy hunting in Africa as much as I enjoy hunting in Europe, I have a few comments to make regards the review “Lion Spy” by Cath Clarke published by your newspaper on July 26th.

According to the review, the film is an “undercover exposé of trophy hunters paying to kill big cats in Africa.” It is described as “the courageous, covert work of Rogue Rubin, a liberal vegetarian from Melbourne,” who “first creates fake social media accounts under a false name and then goes undercover as an intern with a big game hunter in Africa” to create the exposé.

In plain English:

An extreme anti-hunter sets out to make her own “documentary” about the bad guys by lying her way in, choosing precisely who and what she films, and doing all the editing herself.

You must see that this undercover operation is about as credible as an undercover catholic priest infiltrating a swingers club to do an exposé of the “disturbing mindset” (Clarke’s words) of people with a liberal view on intermarital sex. Or a swinger infiltrating a monastery, for that matter.

It’s simply not credible when extremists attempt to expose the bad moral standards of the people they openly hate. I am sure that no one would take an exposé of the disturbing mindset of anti-hunters seriously if I – as an avid recreational hunter – went undercover as a liberal vegetarian. Such an “exposé” would (quite rightly) be dubbed ‘propaganda’.

And yet – instead of calling out the grotesque bias that this “exposé” is based on – Clarke writes about it as if it is a credible documentary. In all fairness, she does mention that Rubin “makes one or two sweeping generalisations about Africa” (which is obviously not OK). Still, just a few lines further into the review, she rounds it up with: “But really her film is an exposé of the minds and mentalities of trophy hunters, best summed up by a clip of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel talking after a Minnesota dentist killed one of Zimbabwe’s most beloved lions in 2015:

“Is it that difficult for you to get an erection that you need to kill things?””

Talk about sweeping generalisations!

This so-called review is more like a helping hand from one anti-hunter to another, and The Guardian thus becomes a willing platform for propaganda on a ridiculous level where the functionality of male genitalia seems to matter greatly.

I’ve never understood this bizarre sexual angle on the subject of hunting. It looks pretty desperate and misandrist. I won’t even try to warp my mind around how this penile fascination of the anti-hunting movement applies to all female hunters?

This review is far below the standard of any serious newspaper. But based on the fact that you published it, I will be astonished if the Guardian publishes this reply. For once, I will be pretty happy to be proven wrong and thereby regain some faith in the journalistic standards of the free press. Or I will take this letter elsewhere that still appreciates facts and exposes propaganda.

Yours faithfully,

Jens Ulrik Høgh